Canada

Voters in Alberta have chosen to remain part of Canada in a first-ever independence referendum.

Canadian state broadcaster CBC News called the results of Monday’s vote late on the same day after 48 percent of the ballots counted showed overwhelming support for the “remain” side, with 76 percent opting to stay with Canada.

The result marks a major win for Prime Minister Mark Carney, who is facing a trade and political war with the United States amid US President Donald Trump’s higher tariffs and repeated suggestions of annexing the country.

On his way into a cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning, Carney called it a “great day.”

“I’m thrilled that Albertans have chosen unity. They’ve chosen to build together. They’ve chosen to continue to take care of each other, to move forward together with purpose,” he said.

But the result also comes as a disappointment for those Albertans seeking independence for the resource-rich region following years of grievances laid at Ottawa’s door. Here’s what we know:

What was the referendum about?

The nonbinding referendum was first announced in May following a campaign and petition by a group of Albertans who want to be an independent country.

While only about one-third of Albertans were found to be pro-independence in polls, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith argued in her announcement that a referendum was necessary to respect the 300,000 Albertans who had petitioned officials for it.

In the referendum, voters answered 10 questions, including whether the government should begin a binding process to seek independence from Canada. They also answered questions on immigration, access to provincial services like education, social care and healthcare, and voter identification requirements.

Prime Minister Carney had campaigned for Albertans to vote “remain”, saying last week at a rally in Calgary that separation would be “ a dangerous bluff that will lead to years of deep division”.

“There are some outside our borders who are working to break us so they can own us,” he said.

Researchers have pointed to possible online influence campaigns by both Russian and US entities that helped amplify the call for separation and allegedly shared misleading information. Alberta PM Smith told media in August that the online activity was under observation.

What have the reactions been?

Prime Minister Carney, who grew up in the region, said “Albertans made a clear choice” in a statement he made early on Tuesday.

“They chose unity, to build together, and to take care of each other,” he said, adding that “Canadians will move forward together with renewed purpose and high ambition.”

Alberta’s Premier Smith said she was pleased to see the results and that “Albertans have voted for a stronger Alberta in a united Canada.”

Separatist leaders from the groups Let Alberta Decide, the Alberta Prosperity Project and the Pathway to Independence said they will wait for all votes to be counted before conceding.

First Nations groups turned out in strong numbers to vote to remain with Canada, with one southern Alberta polling station in an area home to the Siksika Nation temporarily running out of ballots, local media reported.

Why is Alberta important, and why are there calls for independence?

Many Albertans have long complained that their critical natural resources are funding the government in Ottawa and the commercial hubs of Toronto and Montreal, but that the province does not receive proportionate benefits.

The province, with a population of 5.1 million, holds massive oil deposits. It also holds reserves of critical and rare-earth metals including lithium, titanium and zircon, which are essential for manufacturing many tech items, from smartphones to fighter jets.

Separatist movements, some of which even support Alberta joining the US, go back to the 1940s, following the discovery of oil reserves. Some of Alberta’s premiers have had spats with Ottawa over wealth distribution.

US President Trump has made remarks about Canada becoming a US state in recent months.

Last week, he told a political rally in the US state of Arizona that Canada will “end up being the 51st state, because it’s the only way it works”.

The two countries have been embroiled in a trade war since talks fell apart in August this year and they slapped each other with tit-for-tat tariffs.

Earlier this month, tech billionaire Elon Musk called for Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec to separate from Canada, saying “they’d be better off”.

But the matter of Alberta’s independence gained intense scrutiny last year after pro-separatists launched a petition to pressure the government.

Alberta, alongside other western provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, have all complained about “western alienation” by the government in the centre.

Is it over for Alberta’s independence bid?

With separatism agitations running so far back, experts say the referendum will likely not end the movement altogether.

Ahead of the vote, some separatist leaders said they would pursue another referendum if necessary, arguing that the referendum shows that independence is legally possible.

“Regardless of what happens on Monday, we’ve already won,” Keith Wilson, co-leader of Let Alberta Decide, said at a rally last week.

With more than one million votes counted, about 76 percent supported remaining in Canada.

Alberta residents have voted to remain ⁠part of Canada in the province’s first-ever referendum on separation, in a much-needed win for Prime Minister Mark Carney as he ‌attempts to unify the country amid an ongoing trade war with the United States.

With more than one million votes counted, about 77 percent supported remaining in Canada, compared with 23 percent who backed beginning a process that could lead to separation, early results showed on Tuesday.

The vote was not a direct referendum on independence but would have set oil-rich Alberta on a path towards a future vote on separation from Canada.

Carney welcomed the result and said Albertans had made a “clear choice” in favour of unity.

“They chose unity, to build together, and to take care of each other,” he said in a statement on X.

Jeffrey Rath, a top leader of the secessionist Alberta Prosperity Project, told reporters his push for an independent Alberta will “absolutely” continue, despite the result from Monday’s vote.

“We’ve learned a lot of lessons from this fight,” he said.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, a conservative, said she voted against independence but called the referendum to settle an issue that has divided the province.

She has said a win for the federalists would close the secession question.

Alberta has the world’s fourth-largest proven oil reserves, and much of the secessionist momentum has been driven by anger over oil industry management.

Smith has blamed Carney’s predecessor Justin Trudeau for igniting the secessionist fire, accusing him of trying to crush oil production to advance his pro-climate agenda.

Alberta’s independence push has also drawn sustained interest from the allies of US President Donald Trump, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who called Alberta Washington’s “natural partner”. Elon Musk, the world’s richest person and eminent Trump supporter, also posted on X that Alberta “should separate”.

Carney, who grew up in Alberta, has worked to improve relations between the province and Ottawa since taking office last year. He has partnered with Smith on advancing a new pipeline to export more Alberta bitumen overseas, a project considered a nonstarter during Trudeau’s tenure.

Cory Morgan has spent more than 25 years fighting for Canada’s oil-rich province of Alberta to become an independent country. On Monday, Albertans will head to the polls to vote on the issue for the very first time. But even if the answer is no, Morgan said he’s in it for the long haul.

“I would respect the will of the voters,” he told Al Jazeera. “If they’ve decided it’s not time to go that route yet, then so be it. But that doesn’t mean I’ll stop.”

Morgan, the founder of the advocacy organisation Pathway to Independence, is among a group of longtime separatists who have managed to push what was once a fringe idea onto the ballot.

Monday’s provincial referendum asks Alberta residents to weigh whether they would like to pursue a binding resolution in the future on the question of independence.

Polls indicate the pro-independence side has little chance of succeeding, with four of five people in the province saying they want Alberta to remain a part of Canada. But Morgan’s focus is on the one in five who don’t.

“That’s not a movement that’s leaving,” he said.

What the referendum will mean for the separatist movement and for Canada as a whole, however, is a more complicated question.

What exactly are Albertans voting on?

Monday’s ballot gives Albertans two options: to remain part of Canada or begin the legal process for holding a future referendum on separation.

A vote in favour of the second option doesn’t mean Alberta immediately becomes an independent country.

Any province that tries to secede would first have to go through complex negotiations with the federal government in Ottawa, other provinces and Indigenous peoples who live in and around Alberta.

Some separatist organisers have been using that distinction to encourage people to vote for the referendum — even if they don’t necessarily want independence.

“Strategic separatists and their leaders have been using that ambiguity, that lower-bar threshold, to entice folks to vote not to leave, but rather to send Ottawa a message that Albertans need to be heard,” said Jared Wesley, a political science professor at the University of Alberta.

He told Al Jazeera that the message may be resonating with some voters.

Data collected by Viewpoint Alberta, a University of Alberta-based research initiative, suggests that two-thirds of voters who support the referendum say they’re doing so for strategic reasons, to send a message to Ottawa.

These are people Morgan calls “reluctant separatists”, people who are “at the end of their rope” and simply want Ottawa to pay attention.

But Prime Minister Mark Carney has warned Albertans against this strategy.

“Don’t be fooled by the idea you can ‘send a message’ with your vote,” he told a pro-Canada rally in Calgary on Thursday. “This is not poker. A vote against Canada is a dangerous bluff that will lead to years of deep division and great uncertainty.”

What’s driving Alberta’s separatist movement?

Monday’s referendum has been decades in the making. Separatists have long felt that Alberta, home to the world’s fourth-largest proven oil reserves, sends too much money to Ottawa, subsidising the rest of the country while receiving little in return.

They also take issue with federal energy policies that they feel limit the potential of the province’s oil industry.

For Morgan, the resentment stretches back to the 1980s when the National Energy Program was introduced by the government of Pierre Trudeau, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s father.

The policy used price controls, taxes and ownership rules to keep Canadian energy affordable while directing more of Alberta’s revenues to Ottawa.

It has since become a central symbol of “Western alienation”, a term used to describe the sense of disenfranchisement felt among Canada’s westernmost provinces.

Those tensions resurfaced decades later under Justin Trudeau, whose term began in 2015. His climate policies, including a national carbon tax and a limit on emissions, angered Alberta’s oil sector.

“We’ve been fighting about the same things for 50 years,” said Morgan.

Then came the COVID-19 pandemic. Experts say demonstrations against health restrictions mobilised a new generation of conservative activists, breathing new life into Alberta’s separatist movement.

Trudeau ultimately resigned as Liberal Party leader and prime minister in 2025, amid sinking poll numbers. Carney was elected his replacement.

Last year, under growing pressure from separatist groups, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s government made it easier to start referendums, helping bring the question of Alberta’s independence onto the political agenda.

For Wesley, the moment is less about growing public support for independence and more about pressure from within Smith’s governing United Conservative Party, whose members show higher support for separation than Albertans generally.

“We’re having a referendum because Danielle Smith wants us to have a referendum,” Wesley said. “She is looking to solve internal party matters by throwing a question to the broader public.”

Though she called Monday’s referendum, Smith has said she opposes the independence effort, and on October 14, she announced she had voted against seceding.

“In my view, now is not the time to give up hope in our country, not when we have fought so long and come so far,” Smith said in a social media video, explaining her vote.

Could defeat make the movement stronger?

Smith’s political gamble has drawn comparisons with the 2016 Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom, including from Carney.

At the time, then-UK Prime Minister David Cameron called a vote over whether the country should leave the European Union, in hopes of settling a debate dividing his own Conservative Party.

Voters ultimately chose to leave the bloc, triggering years of political unrest.

But Ian Cooper, a political scientist who grew up in Alberta and now lives in Ireland, says a more useful comparison might be a different UK referendum in 1975, when British voters chose overwhelmingly to stay in what was then known as the European Economic Community.

That vote, he said, did little to deter those who wanted the country out.

“The activists who were in favour of Brexit — this is before anybody called it Brexit — they really played the long game,” he said. “It took them 25 years, but they finally achieved it.”

Cooper suspects that, even if Alberta separation is roundly defeated, separatists could take a similar approach, pursuing the issue over the long term to gain prominence and support.

“My impression is that they really are true believers, and it’s really ideologically driven,” he said.

If Monday’s separatist vote fails, Morgan said separatists would need to take a hard look at why they had fallen short and work towards making a stronger case for independence in the future.

He does not believe the underlying grievances can be resolved by working within the Canadian system or by electing a more sympathetic federal government.

Carney, who grew up in Alberta, acknowledged at Thursday’s rally that “the frustrations that many Albertans have felt are real”. He added that Ottawa had made people in the province feel “like our resources weren’t our own”.

The prime minister has tried, amid an ongoing trade war with the United States, to improve relations with Alberta, including through commitments to building a new pipeline to Canada’s west coast and major infrastructure projects.

Morgan admits that, for those whose goal is simply to get more leverage in Ottawa, “it’s pretty clear the movement has been effective”.

“We’ve seen more love from a federal prime minister in the last year than we’ve seen in the last 10,” Morgan said. “The problem though, when it comes to stubborn independence folks like me, is nothing has changed in the system.”

Prime ministers come and go, he added. “We’re just one election away from another hostile one.”

Why the other referendum questions matter

But the referendum could also offer an opportunity to challenge the premise that Alberta’s grievances cannot be addressed within Canada.

The independence question is just one of 10 on Monday’s ballot. Other proposals include restricting temporary residents’ access to healthcare and education, as well as allowing Alberta to choose its own judges.

Smith has encouraged Albertans to vote in favour of the nine other proposals, arguing that they will give her more negotiating power in Ottawa.

“Many Albertans I speak with tell me they want to send Ottawa a message, and I would suggest the best way to do that is to give us a strong mandate on the other nine questions,” she said on social media.

If Albertans back those proposals but Ottawa refuses to make concessions, Cooper, the political scientist, said the movement would have fresh ammunition to argue that meaningful change within the current system is impossible.

“Buried in the nine other questions are the seeds for a future referendum,” Cooper added.

What could keep the movement alive?

Not everyone agrees, however, on whether the separatists can emerge from the vote as a united force.

Wesley explained that people have been drawn to the separatist cause for a variety of reasons.

If there’s a sense that independence is not a realistic prospect, there may be little to keep that group of activists together, he said. They could turn their attention to other conservative issues, such as immigration.

Other experts question whether Alberta’s separatist movement, which is united more by economic grievances than by a shared cultural identity, can endure the way Quebec’s has.

Just two weeks ago, the largely French-speaking province elected the separatist Party Quebecois, which has promised a third referendum on independence after Trump leaves office.

Morgan, however, argues that Alberta does have a distinct culture, shaped by generations of people who have moved to the province in search of prosperity.

“The type of person drawn to do that is often an individualistic type of person,” he said. “They want the opportunity to go out and succeed or fail on their own.”

“And that builds a kind of a distinct culture on its own, even if it’s not a long-built one, as you would see in a distinct area like Quebec with a linguistic difference or in another country.”

Even if Albertans reject separation, he believes the movement has succeeded in forcing Ottawa to take the province’s frustrations more seriously.

“Hopefully some people understand that eventually something has to give,” he said. “So whatever the results are … I do hope, at the very least, they’ve served as a wake-up call to a lot of people.”

A large fire near a Canadian military base in Alberta has killed and injured some people, the defence minister said, without confirming the number of casualties.

The Canadian Armed Forces were working with local authorities to manage the fire and were looking into what caused it, David McGuinty said, describing the situation as “very, very active and delicate”.

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney said on X that a “serious incident creating a major fire” had occurred, adding his “thoughts are with all the brave women and men affected”.

Canadian Forces Base Wainwright, where the fire broke out, is one of the country’s busiest military training bases.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation describes it as “the principal base for live fire training exercises”. About 690 military personnel and 300 civilian workers are on site on a regular day, according to the CBC.

Saturday’s blaze “spread rapidly due to high winds” and had torn through the fences of the base, the Municipal District of Wainwright said.

McGuinty told reporters he “cannot recall an incident like this in recent memory”.

Alberta’s premier Danielle Smith says the “significant and tragic fire” is “affecting many of [the province’s] brave military personnel”. Provincial authorities are in touch with the central government in managing and investigating the situation, she added.

It is unclear when the fire broke out, but the district first posted about the incident at about 17:30 local time (23:30 GMT).

Local authorities have urged residents to avoid the area and give all emergency vehicles right of way.

Neighbouring provinces have offered their support.

Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe says he has deployed resources to Alberta and is “ready to provide more if required”, while British Columbia premier David Eby says his government has “reached out to Alberta to offer all possible assistance”.

For months before carrying out Canada’s deadliest school shooting in almost four decades, Jesse Van Rootselaar was consulting an unlikely adviser on how to perpetrate mass murder.

“In a hallway, indoors, or a crowded classroom, the 870 [Remington shotgun] is brutal … Close quarters is its playground,” OpenAI’s ChatGPT guided the 18-year-old, according to reports.

On February 10, 2026, Van Rootselaar shot his mother and half-brother at home before going to a school in the small British Columbia town of Tumbler Ridge, where he killed another six people – including five students – before taking his own life.

Earlier this week, on October 14, US authorities charged a Washington State man with allegedly conspiring with Van Rootselaar to plan the attack. But the mass shooting incident has raised questions that go beyond the traditional legal understanding of culpability.

The British Columbia government in September filed a civil lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, accusing them of failing to prevent the incident and claiming they were aware of the conversations that turned deadly. Families of the victims also filed separate lawsuits. OpenAI’s leadership issued a public apology for their failure to notify authorities.

The company has not responded to requests from Al Jazeera for its comments on the lawsuits.

But as the case against OpenAI progresses, it has spurred a familiar debate: Where should a line be drawn between reporting potentially dangerous behaviour and protecting an individual’s privacy?

“The question of whether companies should be required to turn such information over to law enforcement is extraordinarily difficult, particularly if they don’t already screen chats for indications of such types of threats,” United States-based civil liberties lawyer Jenin Younes told Al Jazeera.

“Forcing companies to implement a surveillance system implicates very serious civil liberties concerns, and that’s probably a bridge too far for me,” Younes added.

“On the other hand, AI gives individuals access to types and quantities of information they didn’t have previously that may facilitate the commission of mass casualty events, a concern it’s not easy to dismiss.”

AI’s ability to distinguish thoughts from threats

One of the biggest challenges facing AI companies is determining whether a user expressing violent thoughts actually intends to act on them.

In August, Anthropic, the company behind AI chatbot Claude, flagged a user to San Francisco police after discovering conversations allegedly threatening its CEO, Dario Amodei.

According to the San Francisco Standard, citing a police report, the user had claimed to possess an AR-15 gun and suggested he had Amodei “in his sights”.

However, when contacted by the newspaper, the man said he was joking and had no intention of carrying out any form of violence. The person was neither charged nor detained, the Standard said.

Fazl Barez, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford specialising in AI safety and governance, said current AI models cannot “reliably” determine whether an interaction with an AI chatbot “is purely hypothetical or is likely to lead to harmful behaviour”.

“Suppose you are a creative writer working on a fictional story and want to explore how a murder plot might unfold. From the context, it may be clear that this is simply a fictional narrative. If the threshold for flagging potentially harmful content is too low, such a writer could be wrongly flagged,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Similarly, consider a graduate student in biology or chemistry studying pathogens that, if misused, could have serious consequences. They might be trying to understand the risks associated with these pathogens and how to mitigate them. Such discussions may be necessary for legitimate research and education. Even when the subject matter is sensitive, they should not automatically be flagged without considering the broader context.”

The researcher said identifying a credible threat may require examining a user’s interactions across multiple conversations, rather than relying on isolated statements.

Barez said someone experiencing intrusive violent thoughts might turn to a chatbot for support, while another person planning an attack may reveal their intentions gradually across several conversations.

“Distinguishing between the two requires careful consideration of context, intent and patterns of behaviour, rather than relying on individual statements alone,” he added.

Chinmayi Sharma, a law professor at Fordham University, said the debate has parallels with the duty imposed on mental health professionals to warn identifiable third parties about credible threats.

However, she said there was a key difference – therapists have professional training, knowledge of their patients and enforceable standards governing their conduct. AI companies do not necessarily have comparable safeguards.

“My concern with AI companies is that right now there’s not a concerted effort to hire mental health professionals, sociologists, individuals that would have the unique expertise on what the indicators of threat are here,” Sharma told Al Jazeera.

“Secondly, licensed professionals are accountable to concrete, legally enforceable standards in their discipline. We don’t have something like that for AI companies.”

The privacy dilemma

The privacy implications extend beyond whether AI companies can accurately identify threats. Millions of people use chatbots to discuss relationships, emotional distress, mental health concerns and deeply personal experiences.

Civil liberties lawyer Younes said many users may not realise how vulnerable those conversations could be to disclosure.

“They often reflect a person’s innermost thoughts, questions, and desires. The majority of people assume that these dialogues will never be viewed by another person,” Younes, president and legal director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said.

Younes warned that the consequences of greater monitoring could extend well beyond those planning violence.

“If people fear their chats can be turned over to law enforcement simply because they express disturbing thoughts/violent fantasies etc, many will be dissuaded from using them,” she told Al Jazeera.

Younes argued that forcing companies to establish systems for monitoring users and reporting conversations could raise serious constitutional concerns in the US, including protections against unreasonable searches.

Meanwhile, Fordham’s Sharma also raised an issue about who could be disproportionately affected by heavy monitoring by AI chatbots.

“The concern is always there about either intentional or unintentional targeting, because if you have models trained on what we consider dangerous speech, they’re almost always going to reflect biases,” she said. “Certain minorities’ speech is over‑flagged as a threat, while other comparable speech is not.

“Even in a world in which everyone is benevolent, we should still be concerned about disparate outcomes,” she said, warning that machines could reproduce such disparities at scale.

‘Not a licensed therapist’ – When do AI companies become liable to report?

While AI companies may face moral pressure to prevent violence, their legal obligations are less clear, legal experts say.

Bryan Choi, a professor of law at the University of Colorado Boulder, said US law recognises a duty to warn in certain circumstances, including when mental health professionals become aware of imminent threats or when a special relationship exists between parties.

But those principles do not necessarily apply to AI companies.

“Under present case law, it seems unlikely that a company such as OpenAI would be held to have such duties to warn,” Choi told Al Jazeera. “The chatbot is not a licensed therapist. There is no special relationship between the company and the victims.”

Choi said existing negligence and product liability laws could potentially be applied to AI companies, but proving responsibility would present significant challenges.

Finding a balance

Fordham’s Sharma suggested that independent institutions could help establish reporting standards rather than leaving decisions entirely to private companies or requiring immediate disclosure to police.

Such bodies she said could develop procedures for assessing threats and explore ways of sharing only relevant information while protecting users’ identities and other personal details.

Meanwhile, Younes argued that users should, at a minimum, be clearly informed about whether their conversations are monitored and what circumstances could lead to information being shared with law enforcement.

“This is almost certainly an issue that will be wrestled with over the coming years, and I’m not sure anyone knows the solution at this particular point in time,” she said.

“Events that have not yet occurred will likely influence how these policies are shaped.”

Canada fight back to beat England 24-21 in Toronto in the opening match of the WXV Global Series, with Shoshanah Seumanutafa’s 77th-minute try ending the Red Roses’ unbeaten run, stretching back to the 2022 Rugby World Cup final.

WATCH MORE: Rugby Union video on BBC Sport

Available to UK users only.